Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 11, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PST

3:00 am
you'll just have to follow the new laws and who it applies to in terms of number of units. thank you. >> you're welcome. i think my coworker wanted to make a comment. >> there are a couple questions about resale and equity that's occurred. i want to be clear the resale is to sell to a buyer who qualifies -- who income qualifies. it's not -- they're not selling on the open market, but to income qualify. >> i understand that. that would limit the amount of appreciation. assumedly over a period of time, there is going to be appreciation in the ami rate and everything else. >> yes. >> if they're there five to ten years, there would probably be built-in appreciation. there money should get return on it like tied up in a house. they should get something for that period of time. >> yes.
3:01 am
and they've been paying down their loan. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you for the presentation. helpful to understand. [speaker not understood] we don't get a sense of how it's operated after. in some of the data you gave, just globally about the program, i think it is helpful when you come back on the 29th to have that as part of the packet, like how many percentages -- you may not be here. >> i will not be here, no. >> the percentage of projects that's -- how many on-site and off-site, if you do have demographic information -- >> can i do that today? >> you gave a lot of that information. it would be good publicly to have it, too. >> okay. >> yeah, we don't have to spend a ton of time. >> i can tell you, i can show you. >> sure.
3:02 am
>> okay. so, you can see this. you might not be able to. the first box just shows rental versus ownership. this is through 2011 and it starts in fiscal year 2002 because we wanted to look at the year where the fee started. the revenue fee before 2002. so, it doesn't add up to how many units i say there are in total. between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 10-11, we completed 143 projects and you'll see that 79% of those projects show on-site. 4% shows off-site. and 17% shows the fee. and then if you translate that into units, 59% of the units are on-site, 26% of the units are off-site. there's a really big -- one really big off the project, has 170 bmr units. and 60% paid their fee, okay.
3:03 am
so, the on-site option is the most popular. >> does the city have a preference? do we rather because the percentages get higher units off-site, [speaker not understood]? >> i don't have it [speaker not understood]. >> and then a follow-up on commissioner borden's question, i still don't think i understand like the lottery process. when a lottery is used. walk us through quickly. i built some units, i'm a developer. i have three bmr units, i'm ready to go. what happens? >> you get your units priced, fill the form out and i send you pricing for your units and this is what your maximum prices are. you submit a marketing plan and that marketing plan says you have to publicize your units for a 28-day period which is moving to 45 for ownership, 28 for rental. and that means we post it on our website, we send out an e-mail alert to 10,000 people that have signed up through the city. the developer, the sponsor publishes in five local venues,
3:04 am
can be craig's list, local papers, that hits a demographic group in save. and they have to do a weekend paper over two weekends. we'll have info sessions if there are two or more units. we leave most of it. we show up and talk about the program. it's mostly questions about how to qualify. they talk about the units. and then they're collecting applications throughout that process themselves and there are application we provide. and we make it clear what it's for, what project. and at the end of that they fill out a list saying this is everyone who applied and they transmit back to us. two days later we hold a lottery. if it's really big we'll hold it at the public library, for instance. everyone who applied and submitted a complete application got a lottery ticket like a fair ticket, carnival ticket. and we -- the sponsor kept the ticket and copies it, staples it to the application, a number of things to make sure it's all sound.
3:05 am
they get put in three different buckets, [speaker not understood], we lotto people through those preferences and create a list that is at least -- we take at least 10 people for every unit if there are that many. and then we've got our final ranked lottery list. we take it back and rank it. those individuals are contacted one by one to see if they're interested, given time period to get a loan and whatnot. >> so, the developer takes the first person on the lottery list and if they can buy the unit -- if they qualify, they get the unit? >> normally they can because we have the loan pre-approval [speaker not understood] education. >> that's great. and then some of these changes, questions on what the rules are now, the one where you can adjust the ami if it doesn't sell, what happens now. well, the ordinance is currently silent on that. so, we -- so, we'd like it to be explicit that's allowed.
3:06 am
>> you're doing that -- >> the procedures manual has been set since 1992, we can do it. so, they have a time on that. >> given how far can i go -- [multiple voices] >> okay, only 20% higher than the use restriction level. it's never higher. >> and then the rental program where you're allowing up to 200% [speaker not understood], what happens now? what's happened over the last couple years if someone buys those? >> during the last two years we haven't done a fantastic job of monitoring for jobs in our rental units. it's a much smaller program. it's no excuse, we had limited staff. the ownership, you can imagine in 2006 and '7 and '8, took us by storm. we had so many units. we had 350 i think units close in one year in 2007, i believe it was. so, this is a response to that.
3:07 am
the rental program is obviously getting bigger and requires more attention. this is the attention we're giving it. >> and then you mentioned various financing assistance [speaker not understood]. how many units that are purchased also get some type of other assistance from the city? >> i think half. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. it's great to see the program in such good hands. thank you for answering all these questions today. i just want to ask specifically about the rental to owner situation and just get a sense of how often has it happened? i know there weren't that many rental units before. maybe you're anticipating for the future. >> okay. it actually happened once, five years ago. and it was really explicit in that approval that they would sell at 100% of ami. that was absolutely there. and then we have two projects that are asking for it now.
3:08 am
so, it's not happened, but for these three units in 2006. so, two projects that are also smaller that are coming in to convert, they have different situations and they're older approvals. and thea large projects coming online. 1407 market which has 90 rental units will be ready some time in the next year or so. 18th and mission will have 40 below market rate units. [speaker not understood] harrison, 49 units. 22 25 third, has 49 units. a lot of these projects have some other financing on them that is going to require that they rental for a good long period of time, 20 or 30 years. so, we know those -- we're trying to let our renters know that they can convert. >> great. i think that's very forward thinking. i know that relocation is very difficult. so, i'm really supportive of the way that you've laid it out
3:09 am
and proposed it here today. so, overall, i think the more transparency, the more explicit helps everyone understand what they're up against when they're trying to get a unit. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you. will this market be complex, you become an expert. each time we talk about t i feel i need an expert. the more i listen to you, the less i feel i know about t. * let me ask you one question aside from congratulating you for this great piece of work. how does this compare to other cities? this looks to me incredibly forward looking and really right on target. are we better than others -- >> i don't know if we're better than others. people think of us as having the strongest inclusionary program in the country. they often say that. we call us, fly to washington state right now. they have to have san francisco, you know. to us, there is so much more we could do, so it's hard to think that. we don't have the strictest --
3:10 am
we have strict requirements. 15% on-site which we know will change, and 20% off-site in fees. it is fairly -- not strict, it's strong for the country, but a lot of other cities have the same requirements. and some of those requirements seem stronger, but they don't produce as much as we do. we were talking to cities recently trying to figure this out myself. you may have a threshold in another city in california, in your first unit you're paying a fee. we're already talking about doing on-site. we started at 5 and now potentially we go back to 10. currently we're at 5 units or more are subject to the program. but they don't produce much. for how much we have and how much we produce, i have a feeling we're producing more than most, even most large cities. >> let me just comment. i think it's really your due diligence and thoroughness including your transparency because the issues being discussed all the time.
3:11 am
you are creating a level of public acceptance, which really kind of unique to the city and i think that's where success lies. * which is you're not bringing in people pulling them by the hair to the table as an obligation. it is something that needs to be done as part of the standard of discussion. part of the strength of where this comes from [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> i want to thank you. this is obviously a lot of use of information you have internally and institutionally, to spit it back out in half an hour or so is a challenge. i think the other item today was very heavy intensive, i want to thank commissioner borden and all of us getting in that mode where we're getting in the judgment, seeing a picture of a project like this. if we can draw a little bit of parallels and maybe in the future take some hard data of your program and overlay it or somebody ends up overlaying it,
3:12 am
it gives us a little more definitive how are we doing, how do we rank. i suspect very well by how your eyes lit up when we asked the questions and you had the answers we're doing very well. apples to apples might make it more interesting. thank you for your effort. >> thank you. >> sugaya. >> yes, along that line it might be interesting -- i'd be interested to know the cost of the program. * commissioner sugaya within the city there is a cost obviously with staffing and administration. i'm not looking for a number, but some kind of ratio or percent or something that tells us what the program is costing. >> i'm glad you brought that up. we are just completing a financial analysis of the program that we are going to do every five years. so, that will give you some idea of the cost to the sponsors of what's happening. it looks at fee on-site and
3:13 am
off-site side by side. comparatively how it impacts them. they can get you information regarding staff [speaker not understood]. >> with respect to the development community, since the program has been running for a while now, do you feel that there's general developer acceptance or -- do you know what i'm trying to say? i'm sure some don't like it, for example, and they're sort of only doing it because they're forced into it, where others i think that have come before us are more accepting and somewhat enthusiastic at times and are perfectly willing to have on-site and that kind of thing. >> i feel like there's always been a diplomatic relationship between our office and the planning department and developers when it comes to this program. i've always been impressed by ti know that some, you know, some groups of developers may have felt that their voice wasn't heard as much,
3:14 am
particularly maybe the rba in the last financial analysis we did of the program five years ago. but i think we've gone a long way of bringing them in and listening to their concerns. for instance, some of those things that are not covered in the manual that we know are important that are listed in your memo come from them. so, i think we feel like we've reached out from the small to the tall for this review and i feel that most people feel we've asked for their voice, especially the financial analysis that we recently have been bringing people together and talking to developers about the land dedication issue. i'm sure they'll have their own concerns. because the program is growing and people are learning it more and people are talking to each other more. so, we'll hear from some of them when we come back for approval. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> keeping you for a second day. i was listening to a replay of the 2010 planning commission meeting. it was rba saying -- he was actually commenting on exactly
3:15 am
what you're saying. he said the more transparent the department is -- and he's speaking about planning as well as you -- the easier it is for us to work with obligations which we don't have any problem with as long as they are clear from the get go. i would really -- aloe senly he kaz commenting, you were speaking to it. * essentially he was commenting for you to bring a program forward which includes the general public is more accepted. when you build here, that's part of the deal. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, one final question from me. and although the preach has a lot of benefits, there are always those who say there is a certain cost that's inherent in it and it is inherent for you to answer a question about cost driven by the inclusionary. a lot depends on the percentage if the percentage is higher. the other thing that's a variable in my mind is if you
3:16 am
have a subsidy that's less deep -- in other words, if you're closer to the 100th percentile, then the subsidy is much less, therefore the cost per unit that has to be subsidized by the builder and passed on to those who are paying market rate is a lower one. so, i mean, those are things we have to keep in mind because although you're careful to be protective of those who take advantage of the program that they truly qualify, they are the beneficiaries. but to some degree, there is a factor that drives the market rate of the units up above what it might be above the sticks and bricks cost. and then, of course, we have a lot of other inherent costs that we have to. so, the one thing we have to look at is make sure our program is fairly comparable to what's done in other areas because there's up sides and downsides. people say, we should have 30% of inclusionary, that isn't
3:17 am
realistic. you're just bumping up everybody else's market rate units. even fewer people are able to buy in san francisco on the open market. that's just an interesting thing i think we have to look at constantly. >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i was going to say one final thing. again, thank you for all the data. next time when we hear this, i'd love to know about the number of people that receive down payment assistance. you said it's a separate program from inclusionary, what those numbers are like. i think that we're always trying to capture people who are moving into market rate housing, but actually might be in a lower income level than what we consider market rate housing and it would be helpful to know from your information. >> both below market rate buyer and market brit buyer? >> right. who gets assistance. great. >> okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the commission is going to take a very short break here and we'll pick up the last two items.
3:18 am
>> remind to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we are under your regular calendar, number 12, visitacion valley schlage lock plan update, informational hearing. >> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. claudia [speaker not understood], department staff. we are here to give an update and i am joined by office staff senior management on the project. if i could have the slides up, please. i'm going to go through a little bit of background, just for the benefit of new commissioners and the public, a little bit of history on the site. so, this used to be a factory in visitacion valley. for many years, in 1989, the company schlage lock decided to
3:19 am
close it, proposed a home depot store on the site. the community, residents and business owners were opposed to this. so, after that opposition, the planning department got involved in partner with the community and the nonprovist urban oncology to create a new vision for the site. this resulted in a concept plan in 2002 with the goals that are outlined right there on your -- on the slide, which you have a copy of. and, so, generally the concept plan called for redevelopment of the site and revitalization and providing community services and neighborhood serving retail, especially grocery store, providing housing of different affordable and market rate, providing open spaces as well as community spaces and helping revitalize land as well as site clean up. therefore, from 2009 when the
3:20 am
concept plan was published to 2011, the redevelopment agency got involved to establish the site as a redevelopment area. a advisory committee, cac was established and the universal parent corporation or upc became the primary development partner. so, throughout this period both the redevelopment agency as well as us, planning department, worked closely with the cac and the community to really refine the site's land use framework as well as come up with community benefits. so, out of this work with the community and the cac, we came up with the following goals and objectives which guided the development of the subsequent redevelopment plan. this included encouraging a miss of uses, environmental sustainability, very pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, which was connected with the greater
3:21 am
visitacion valley neighborhood, including bayshore, looking at alternative transportation and open space, new housing, a gay way community, encouraging again investment and revial alliesing leland avenue. these are the goals that are in the plan and they direct the revitalization of the site. they -- the provision of community benefits and guide the development of the site. so, this work -- these goals led to developing the master plan for the site and just -- they also included -- the program also included the project commitments to infrastructure and various other public benefits. the major components, just to highlight them briefly, are basically to have good circulation, street grid compatible with the rest of the
3:22 am
already established visitacion valley neighborhood, providing new open space for the neighborhood, having retail and continuing leland avenue up to the project site, having a full service grocery store, and having mixed uses, mixed income housing throughout the development. and sort of at the north end of the site, there is an old office building which is envisioned as a community space, having some form of community use. since adoption of the plan in 2009, the viz valley cac met to discuss the implementation. and provide comments to the upc, the developer, offer implement for the plans of the site. all of the master plan commitments were primarily memorialized in two documents. again, which were adopted in 2009. the redevelopment agency -- redevelopment plan and the planning department's design for development which is primarily the land use, you
3:23 am
know, all the density, open space, development control. all of these commitments have costs associated with them and revisions to all of the commitments that were part of the original plans could jump start more rapid development of the site. why do we need to revise these? as you might recall, we had lost the redevelopment agency and with this we lost the redevelopment funding that was expected to, to fulfill those commitments. so, we are looking primarily to tax increment financing. we are looking at, with the help of office economic and work force development, we are looking at alternative financials that will help makeup the gap and this will be the topic of future discussions here at the planning commission, but also we want to talk about this with the community. so, we're looking at i think for new market tax credits, bonds, state glands, rfds, rewd, just started to explore
3:24 am
the different tools available. however, that still doesn't close the gap fully. that tiff program was to recover. it requires a revirginiavtion indication of the master plan. just to give you a sense of the magnitude, at the time of the adoption of the 2009 plan, this is how much tax increment financing revenue we thought would be available at the time, approximately 70 million. about 32% of that or 34.8 million was for nonhousing projects. and, so, when we look at the loss of tax increment financing, we need to make very thoughtful adjustments to ensure that the whole project is viable, but also i will talk a little bit more about kind of a safe one to really jump start this, the redevelopment of the site.
3:25 am
, and so, we have an opportunity to facilitate near-term change on the site with a phase 1 and some revisions. this can help us move towards achieving the long-term goals of the plan. so, how do we hope to address this? the city -- as a city, we have outlined the following sort of scope for the 2012 revisit of the plan. planning department will be the lead in outreach engagement coordination for reviewing and revising the plan. obviously we'll be looking at land use circulation, open space and other public benefits. office of economic work force development will be the lead on transferring the sfra, 9 redevelopment agency requirements and jurisdiction over to kind of the appropriate places to make sure we can still -- we still have a commitment. they also are going to be looking at the financial commitments and what tools can be used to address the
3:26 am
different commitment. and they'll be helping with development disability. oewd has started to look at these things and begun their work. we the planning department also started to -- we kicked off our first community meeting in visitacion valley back in october. we also have to sort of help the city. we have a technical advisory body which we will be working with very closely. these are primarily prior citizen advisory committee members, but also other active community participants. we are calling on them because they work with the redevelopment agency very closely so we think that their familiarity and their expertise will help facilitate the transition to make sure we stay as close to the original plan as possible. so, that will be their role. just to summarize the community
3:27 am
workshops, again, we still plan to meet with them, so, we will give you a more detailed summary of what we heard, but so far of the priorities -- of all the commitments that we had come up with, the top five priorities that we heard were important for the community to retain. we're making sure there is a grocery store, open space and parks making sure we retain open space and parks. and ideally, the same amount of open space. so, even if [speaker not understood], we have the same total amount of open space. circulation improvements are important, especially dealing with traffic issues on bayshore, but making sure there's growth circulation within the site. having more retail, particularly along leland, and affordable housing that sort of fits priority. but we heard a lot of economic development programs and retaining the old office building as a community center was very important.
3:28 am
and other key feedback was -- we heard kind of a strong call for senior housing. they have kind of a large -- it's a particular portion of the population, senior housing. the community was generally okay with some higher heights. there were other benefits. there were appropriate setbacks, appropriate design, open space, building separation. we heard about public safety and the crime rate. it's a big concern, and that public transportation improvements are a priority. we have two more meetings with the community. so, over the next meetings we confirm with them these are the right priorities that we heard them right and that we didn't miss anything. so, we will provide you next time we come to you with a more detailed summary of what's emerging out of the community process. as i mentioned earlier, there is an opportunity to jump start development of the site through a phase 1 development. these are the developer goals
3:29 am
for this phase. we know they are very committed to working with the community and the city -- they're still here. they're here today and we are working with them in a more detailed phase 1 development that can meet these goals, but also the community's priorities and the city's goals. so, as far as timeline and next steps, so, as i mentioned, we already had our first workshop. and we will have two more workshops, one at the end of this month and late november. these are just a general outline of topics. we're still confirming what we'll be talking to them about. but the next one roughly will be about open space design and circulation and a more detailed phase 1 development. and the last workshop, we hope to have a final phase 1 development and we'll be talking to them more about the financial tools and the proposed plan changes. as i mentioned, the technical advisory body


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on